• We explored physician's cognitive processes when making therapeutic decisions in a complex situation in which more than one treatment option is acceptable. Eighteen internists were presented with three hypothetical cases of patients with coronary artery disease and were asked to explain their treatment decisions. Based on process tracing, we characterized their method of therapeutic decision making. We found that physicians use a three-stage process that we call focal composite analysis: (1) selection of a few facts (focal points) and evaluation of each fact individually with respect to treatment options; (2) reassessment of the value of the focal points with respect to each other and unification of the case; and (3) summation of the values of the focal points to make the final decision. Using this model, we predicted physicians' actual treatment decisions in 96% of the hypothetical cases. Further analysis revealed a wide variety of focal points chosen overall, with most physicians choosing different focal points in each case. Of a total of 32 focal points chosen in three cases, only two focal points were predictors of the physicians' actual treatment choices. We conclude that in the complex problem considered here physicians use a staged process of choosing and evaluating information to make therapeutic choices.
(Arch Intern Med 1987;147:1281-1285)
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 13
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.